The provisions as to beneficiaries residing abroad are quite various, some of the acts giving them the same standing as other bene ficiaries, others excluding them entirely, while still others permit persons only of cer tain degrees of kinship to receive benefits or limit the amount payable to non-resideuts.
Injuries Arising out of, and in the Course of, the Employment. The injuries compen sated are usually all of those which arise out of, and in the course of, the employment and are not due to wilfulness or intoxication. An accident is said to arise "in the course of" a man's employment if it occurs while he is do . ing what a man so employed may reasonably do within a time during which he is em ployed, and at a place where he may reason ably be during that time ; Bryant v. Fissell, 184 N. J. Law, 72, 86 Atl. 458. A workman, while on his way by a route which he was I permitted to take by his employers, attempt ed to get on a tram car to ride up an incline, which was in violation of his employer's rules, and fell and was killed. Held, that the accident did not occur in the course of his employment ; Pope v. Hills Plymouth Co., 105 L. T. Rep. 678. A workman receives in j juries by accident "arising out of" his em jployment when the accident was due to the nature of the work, or was incidental to it, as where a man undertakes to do something and the required exertion which produces the injury is too great for him, whatever the degree of exertion or the condition of his health ; Clover, etc., Co. v. Hughes, 102 L. T. Rep. 340. A man employed to collect insur ance premiums from door to door slipped on some stairs while pursuing the duties of his employment and was injured. It was held that the accident arose out of his employ ment ; Refuge Assurance Co. v. Millar, 49 Sc. L. Rep. 67. A young woman was employed as lady's maid and serving maid. She was sitting in the nursery room on a warm even ing with the window open, doing some sewing for herself which she was allowed to do. A beetle flew into the room, and the young woman threw up her hand to keep it from striking her face, and in doing so struck her eye with her hand in such a way as to cause serious and permanent injury. Held, that the accident did not arise out of her employ ment; Craske v. Wigan, [1909] 2 K. B. 635. A locomotive engineer was injured while on duty by a stone thrown by a boy from a bridge, under which the engine was passing at the time. It was held that the injury arose out of and in the course of his em ployment ; Challis v. London, etc., R. Co., 93
L. T. Rep. 330. A workman employed in the construction of a building was struck by lightning when working at the height of twenty-three feet. The evidence showed that a man working in that position incurs a risk substantially greater than the normal risk of being struck by lightning. It was held that the accident arose out of the employment; Andrew v. Failsworth Industrial Society ; [1904] 2 K. B. 32.
Employment does not commence the mo ment the workman leaves home on his way to work, nor does it continue until he reaches home after the day's work is done. Nor does it continue while the workman steps aside—that is, leaves his work—for purposes of his own. Thus, a railway engineer, on his way to work earlier than was necessary, went out of his course for purposes of his own to talk to a signal-man. In order for him to reach the man it was necessary to cross some railroad tracks, but on a direct route from his home to the engine shed where he signed on for work every morning there were no tracks to cross. When he had finish ed speaking to the signal-man, he started back across the tracks and was struck and killed by an engine. It was held that the ac cident was not one arising out of and in the course of the employment; Benson v. Lan cashire, etc., R. Co., [1904] 1 K. B. 242. There is considerable difficulty in ascertain ing precisely when a workman's employment begins. Each case must be decided on its individual facts. Generally speaking, the factory gate or yard, or the like, indicates the boundary, but in particular instances there may be a wider margin in favor of the workman. The fact that an accident happens at a time when there is a temporary cessa tion of work does not permit its being one arising out of and in the course of the em ployment. The employment continues during all the time from the employe's arrival on the premises until his departure, providing he is engaged in the employment or something an cillary thereto ; Blovelt v. Sawyer, [1904] 1 K. B. 271. Minor employes occupying a plat form where they were sent to rest during an intermission in the performance of their du ties, were held to continue as employes in the service of their employer during such time ; Chambers v. Mfg. Co., 106 Md. 496, 68 Atl. 290, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 383. It has been held that the relation of master and servant con tinues to exist during the servant's noon hour, where it is understood that the servant will remain on the master's premises to eat his meal.